Snider had no problem pocketing their expansion fees so the owners could profit off a larger television contract. The owners created this mess so they have to deal with it.

Snider is a big hypocrite. He is on the side that is claiming the system is broken when no one abused it more than he did. He wants to take the hockey season from us to prevent what he has been doing all along. The only thing the owners proposal does is line his pockets with more money. Meanwhile the Flyers justify increases in ticket prices claiming the costs are rising when they were paying more on player salaries prior to the last lockout than they have been in the last 7 years.

Snider and the other big market owners are the biggest jokers in all of this.

The big markets kept the expansion fees with the idea that these teams would become profitable or relocate. It's how the NHL has operated from its creation. If a team is failing in one location it's moved to another without much afterthought. Bettman made Southern expansion his number one goal as soon as he became Commissioner and has refused to admit most of them have been failures. That's why most of the big market teams are against revenue sharing. Not only does it give the lesser teams a competitive advantage, but they also might as well throw their money down the toilet. It certainly isn't going to keep these franchises afloat.

I have no problem with the larger markets holding out for less revenue sharing. I do have a problem with an insistence on lowering the cap by so much, even after the league recorded record revenue earnings last year. Do you really think Snider wants that? Comcast Spectacor has certainly spent a lot more than just 68 million dollars in payroll in the past, and they have no problem doing so.

He had no problem pocketing the expansion fees, but I'm sure he'd love to have them still making money after that.

Of course, but he and his fellow owners chose to put NHL teams in non-traditional markets. They knew it would take time to grow these markets, but decided it was a good idea because it would line their pockets.They can't complain when they knew it was going to take time.

Snider is a big hypocrite. He is on the side that is claiming the system is broken when no one abused it more than he did. He wants to take the hockey season from us to prevent what he has been doing all along. The only thing the owners proposal does is line his pockets with more money. Meanwhile the Flyers justify increases in ticket prices claiming the costs are rising when they were paying more on player salaries prior to the last lockout than they have been in the last 7 years.

Snider hasn't done anything wrong. You can claim the system is broken and then take advantage of it, because, frankly, that's the cards dealt. People work within the system provided to their advantage or somebody else will. He's one guy with a lot of pull, but he can't force the rest of the owners to capitulate.

He's a businessman. It's his job to make money. Nothing wrong with it.

You do realize that, after all costs, the Flyers only made 3.2 million, right? They actually lost -4% in value. Snider is running the team almost breaking even, using the growing value of NHL teams as a buffer against inflation. Having a team is like owning real estate. It tends to grow at the same rate as taxes + inflation, so your invested money retains its worth, instead of depreciating like most money.

He would also like to make money, in addition to simply being afforded the luxury of running a team. I would be enraged if I could only break even while small market teams began to black hole the profits and then wanted more revenue sharing. You don't work, then fold.

Revenue sharing would make the Flyers go into the negative per year. The big teams to actually take money from aren't the Flyers. They are the Leafs, Rangers, and Canadians, whose combined earnings top the entire rest of the league.

Snider spends money-- he doesn't make much of anything on the Flyers.

The average hockey team is worth 5% more than last year. To beat inflation and taxes, you have to hit 7%.

Quote:

Snider and the other big market owners are the biggest jokers in all of this.

Yeah, it's crazy to be part of a group that purchases a team for over a hundred million dollars and NOT want other groups to drag down the money and value of that investment.

The big markets kept the expansion fees with the idea that these teams would become profitable or relocate. It's how the NHL has operated from its creation. If a team is failing in one location it's moved to another without much afterthought. Bettman made Southern expansion his number one goal as soon as he became Commissioner and has refused to admit most of them have been failures. That's why most of the big market teams are against revenue sharing. Not only does it give the lesser teams a competitive advantage, but they also might as well throw their money down the toilet. It certainly isn't going to keep these franchises afloat.

I have no problem with the larger markets holding out for less revenue sharing. I do have a problem with an insistence on lowering the cap by so much, even after the league recorded record revenue earnings last year. Do you really think Snider wants that? Comcast Spectacor has certainly spent a lot more than just 68 million dollars in payroll in the past, and they have no problem doing so.

Bettman's Southern expansion was the #1 goal because that was the owners #1 goal. If the majority of the board wanted these franchise moved they'd be gone. Bettman works for them and not the other way around.

I think Snider is perfectly fine with a lower cap. It would just be like when the cap was instituted. The bigger markets will still have the advantage because the smaller markets will spend closer to the floor while the large markets spend to the cap. All it means for the bigger markets is costs are controlled so they are spending less on player salaries.

Of course, but he and his fellow owners chose to put NHL teams in non-traditional markets. They knew it would take time to grow these markets, but decided it was a good idea because it would line their pockets.They can't complain when they knew it was going to take time.

No argument, but shouldn't they be able to complain if they want to get out and Bettman refuses to do it?

Bettman's Southern expansion was the #1 goal because that was the owners #1 goal. If the majority of the board wanted these franchise moved they'd be gone. Bettman works for them and not the other way around.

I think Snider is perfectly fine with a lower cap. It would just be like when the cap was instituted. The bigger markets will still have the advantage because the smaller markets will spend closer to the floor while the large markets spend to the cap. All it means for the bigger markets is costs are controlled so they are spending less on player salaries.

How do we know all of the owners were in on the idea of Southern expansion? Snider may not have been but was outvoted by other owners who were for expansion.

If you were in Snider's shoes, would you be for revenue sharing? It would require the Flyers to give money to floundering franchises in the hopes that they become competitive and profitable. Why would he be in favor of that? Shouldn't they be held accountable for their own terrible business decisions? I tend to side with the players in this whole ordeal, but I have no problem with Snider's stance.

Lower caps will do nothing more than force average to good players out of the league. Teams will have less depth and more rookies constantly on their roster because prime age players will take up most of the cap.

I would assume the small market teams want the cap lowered. Lower cap hurts the Flyers.

It wouldn't hurt the Flyers if they spent wisely. Just because you have the money doesn't mean you should spend to the limit, especially in cases when you're bidding against yourself. I'm not just talking about this summer's insanity because a lot of teams were out of control but in past years we've been in cap hell because of stupid decisions like Randy Jones' and Jody Shelley's signing.

Snider hasn't done anything wrong. You can claim the system is broken and then take advantage of it, because, frankly, that's the cards dealt. People work within the system provided to their advantage or somebody else will. He's one guy with a lot of pull, but he can't force the rest of the owners to capitulate.

He's a businessman. It's his job to make money. Nothing wrong with it.

You do realize that, after all costs, the Flyers only made 3.2 million, right? They actually lost -4% in value. Snider is running the team almost breaking even, using the growing value of NHL teams as a buffer against inflation. Having a team is like owning real estate. It tends to grow at the same rate as taxes + inflation, so your invested money retains its worth, instead of depreciating like most money.

He would also like to make money, in addition to simply being afforded the luxury of running a team. I would be enraged if I could only break even while small market teams began to black hole the profits and then wanted more revenue sharing. You don't work, then fold.

Revenue sharing would make the Flyers go into the negative per year. The big teams to actually take money from aren't the Flyers. They are the Leafs, Rangers, and Canadians, whose combined earnings top the entire rest of the league.

Snider spends money-- he doesn't make much of anything on the Flyers.

The average hockey team is worth 5% more than last year. To beat inflation and taxes, you have to hit 7%.

Yeah, it's crazy to be part of a group that purchases a team for over a hundred million dollars and NOT want other groups to drag down the money and value of that investment.

I'm skeptical that Snider's balance sheet on the Flyers isn't weighted out against his list of other investments.

I'm skeptical that Snider's balance sheet on the Flyers isn't weighted out against his list of other investments.

Are the owners supposed to take a loss? Generally, that's how you lose your job at an investment meeting. Snider has job security, but it isn't necessarily that way around the rest of the league. You can't lose money on 150+ million dollar investments. You just can't. The Devils are almost bankrupt.

So you have the NHL who doesn't want to lose teams and the NHLPA that doesn't want to lose teams..

Not sure why everyone suggests contraction

I see little sense in having the New York Ranger, New York Islander, New Jersey Devils and Philadelphia Flyers all competing for the Northeast Pennsylvania-North New Jersey fans. Simply having a team in New York and a team in Philadelphia would do the job. I don't think NBC or any network would cancel a TV contract if the New Jersey Devils and New York Islanders were contracted. If the NHLPA doesn't want to lose jobs, have the NHL expand the rosters and allow teams to have a 7th defenseman on the bench.

Are the owners supposed to take a loss? Generally, that's how you lose your job at an investment meeting. Snider has job security, but it isn't necessarily that way around the rest of the league. You can't lose money on 150+ million dollar investments. You just can't. The Devils are almost bankrupt.

What I meant was that I'd be surprised if Snider's army of accountants didn't subtract from the column of Flyers income or increase expenses and add/subtract it elsewhere to prop up another part of his empire.

I see little sense in having the New York Ranger, New York Islander, New Jersey Devils and Philadelphia Flyers all competing for the Northeast Pennsylvania-North New Jersey fans. Simply having a team in New York and a team in Philadelphia would do the job. I don't think NBC or any network would cancel a TV contract if the New Jersey Devils and New York Islanders were contracted. If the NHLPA doesn't want to lose jobs, have the NHL expand the rosters and allow teams to have a 7th defenseman on the bench.

One could argue that the Devils are a succesful franchise making it to the finals last year and winning a couple cups not too long ago, and moving them would be unfair to the fans, BUT on the other hand I'm pretty sure the franchise doesn't make any money and has a hard time selling out games, plus they're in Newark, not the #1 optimal spot for a hockey team

One could argue that the Devils are a succesful franchise making it to the finals last year and winning a couple cups not too long ago, and moving them would be unfair to the fans, BUT on the other hand I'm pretty sure the franchise doesn't make any money and has a hard time selling out games, plus they're in Newark, not the #1 optimal spot for a hockey team

On-ice, very successful. But the off-ice stuff is what really matters for this discussion.

While we await the NHL and NHL Players’ Association to resume talks -- no scheduled sessions at this point -- here’s a little nugget I found interesting from the summer’s negotiating sessions: The league has proposed to the NHLPA to have free agency start July 10 instead of the long-standing July 1 opening day, two sources told ESPN.com.